Hello Steve,
Thanks for another arrogant reply, you must be proud.
Written in response to your letter of Friday, January 07, 2000, 2:03:38 PM:
SL> Friday, January 07, 2000, 10:36:54 AM, cid wrote:
>> Steve, although you offer "workable" solutions, there are easier ways
>> to deal with the The Bat!s shorcomings besides "what's between the
>> chair and the keyboard", as you put it.
SL> "Cid", what you, and Alex, are not understanding is that I don't consider
SL> a lack of "personalities" a shortcoming, I consider it a feature. If you
SL> consider it a shortcoming then that is clearly a perception issue and *IS* a
SL> problem between chair and keyboard.
>> You may not care to deal with mail from multiple accounts as one, but
>> some of us do.
SL> Bully for you, use another product, don't mangle this one for everyone
SL> else who doesn't work like you do.
Bully for you...*you* use another product. I didn't realize that TB!
Was especially made for Steve Lamb. I've seen more support on this
newsgroup (or at least interest, if it can be done properly) for the
things Alex and I are discussing, than I have for your head in the
sand approach. TB! Will be developed in a way that TB feels it's
customers will be best served. You aren't the only customer...
>> I don't want to redirect messages all over the place, bouncing them through
>> my ISP or anywhere else for that matter.
SL> Forwards are acceptable use, have been for years. If not, you can always
SL> have a local filter.
Forwards waste resources. Plain and simple. The resources may not be
taxed now, but it's a waste of time. And if I was on a 56K account,
and not ADSL, does filtering make a lot of sense? No, it's a waste of
time. Especially for people who pay dearly for internet usage by the
minute. That is time they have to be connected...why spend time on the
ISP when the informationis already on your computer? If I have to
bring a sheet of paper with notes on it to work, I don't put it in the
mailbox, and let the US Postal Service deliver it to me at work. I
keep it with me. Once the mail is on your computer, it should stay
there...no need to send it back out!
>> For example, I have an old account, one that I rarely use, but is still
>> active. I keep it active just in case something comes along that's
>> worthwhile, maybe an old correspondence, maybe an old friend who tracked me
>> down through an outdated internet search engine. Regardless of how the
>> people got the address, I want to filter it the same way as my other mail.
SL> Ah, but would you want to respond with that address as personalities
SL> dictate?
But I have a simple pull down menu "From:" that I can select with one
click. Or, I can have all my folders use my [EMAIL PROTECTED] address as
the default. Personalities wouldn't matter. Regardless, I've never
recommended personalities, just the ability to use a single filter to
apply to all accounts, or subsets thereof.
>> We can't always control where everyone sends email, we don't email
>> EVERYONE everyday where we can remind them into submission.
SL> No, we can't. But in my years and years of email I've never had a problem
SL> on getting people to use the proper address with friendly reminders. That is
SL> a social issue, not a technical one.
In *your* years. Not my years, not Alex's years (sorry if I'm speaking
for you Alex). Not necessarily in any other customer's years, but
yours. Remember Steve, your experience is your experience. Lots of us
have lives.
>> The only other way to do that would be to have a single email account and
>> give the user no choice. That's neither possible nor practical in most
>> situations.
SL> Then why have multiple accounts if you're not going to have multiple
SL> reasons for it?
Multiple reasons means that your employer requires you to use their
email system, personal use requires your own email system. In a
nutshell, most people have two accounts that way. They don't have a
choice.
>> Steve, I think you need to accept that your way may not be the
>> *right* way, it's just your way.
SL> I have accepted that. You and Alex need to accept that your way is not
SL> the right way, either, and keep your paws off a viable client.
We've never said it's the right way, we've tried to make constructive
comments, and find out what might be feasible and what might not be.
Your fight against bloat is a very noble one. But you can't fight
bloat by alienating needs of others. If that were the case, we'd all
still be running DOS and Win 3.1 on 40 MB hard drives. That ran
fine, for many users...why do we need 22GB HD's? The world moves
on...
>> If you are perfectly happy with the way it works, stick with 1.38e as long
>> as you like. You don't have to upgrade.
SL> Actually, yes, I do.
Why? According to you, TB! Does everything that you need it? If
there are bugs, you can find work arounds? You've already suggested
to Alex a number of keyboard combinations to get him around some
things...I don't see why you can't apply the same.
>> Hopefully, when 2.x comes out, it will have OPTIONS, and hopefully you can
>> continue to operate the way you do even if you do upgrade.
SL> The problem with options is that it forces code bloat, code complexity,
SL> configuration complexity.
It does not FORCE bloat. Look at the options in Opera...it is very
configurable, and for what I use it, has more features/options than Netscape (toggle
pictures, zoom menu, etc)...but it's not bloatware. That's for sure.
SL> I'm all for options, but options that change the
SL> fundamental behavior of the program, that involve completely different ways of
SL> doing things and that, in essence, disable a large portion of code is nothing
SL> more than waste to me.
If it disable's code, it won't slow you down.
SL> Furthermore, there is only so much that you can put
SL> into "options" before people look at the options, get intimidated, and look
SL> elsewhere. That is where multiple products come in.
Right, and I like TB! Because it is a good mix. I'm not suggesting
major overhaul, I'm suggesting minor tweaks.
>> For the rest of us, that want to do things differently, we have a right to
>> ask for features, and should expect them to be implemented, as paying
>> customers, if they are supported by enough people.
SL> You also have the right to move to another client. I'm sick of this move
SL> that every program of a certain genre has to look and feel like every other
SL> product in the genre.
You have the same rights. And you have the right to not upgrade.
Doesn't have to be the same. But when you find a feature that works,
other products should pick up on that, and certainly chose their own
priorities. You have that buggy-whip mentality. Why the heck did we
need all those damn cars...they are just complex, maintenance hogs...
Well, they were, and still are. But it was a reality of the times.
>> Frequently, your responses to someone's wish list have been: "Bad
>> Idea" or "Wrong" type answers.
SL> Of course. I go on to explain why, most often in technical reasons.
SL> Saying...
>> Instead of a simple: "IMHO, this would not be effective because..."
SL> ...doesn't change the fact they are bad ideas and are flat out wrong.
They are not flat out wrong. Only your ability to not absorb fresh
ideas and give valid arguments is flat out wrong.
>> You need to accept other peoples TB! usage. They aren't wrong, they aren't
>> bad ideas. They may be based on misinformation, or not completely thought
>> through, but if you keep bashing all the new ideas, and stifle innovation by
>> telling people that the problem is the user, and the software doesn't need
>> improving, we'll end up with a Micro$oft product!
SL> Incorrect. A Microsoft product is one that tries to do everything for
SL> everyone in one, large, monolithic application. Do *YOU* see a PIM in TB!
SL> like there is in Lookout!? I don't. I don't bash all new ideas, I bash the
SL> bad ones or ones that would go down the path of excessive bloat.
No, MicroSoft product *tells* you what you want. They never ask. 90%
of the people I work with complain regularly about MS and how they
added features that they never need. The difference here is, we are
asking for features, or at least an investigation into them. Most
importantly, we aren't asking you.
--
Best regards,
Derek mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
